National Poverty Eradication Programme And The Nigerian Social Formation: An Impact Evaluation Of Anambra State (2003-2013)
Chapter One
Introduction
1.1 Background of the Study
Reduction of poverty has been the most difficult challenge facing most countries in the developing world where on the average majority of the population is considered poor. In Nigeria, evidences show that the number of those living in poverty has continued to increase. For example, the number of those in poverty increased from 27% in 1980 to 46% in 1985; and declined slightly to 42% in 1992, and increased very sharply to 67% in 1996. By 1999, estimates had it that more than 70% of Nigerians lived in poverty. Based on this, the government declared in November 1999 that the N470 billion budgets for year 2000 was “to relieve poverty.” Before the National Assembly even passed the 2000 budget, the government got an approval to commit N10 billion to poverty alleviation programme. Ogwumike,(1998).
In the 2001 budget, the government increased the allocation to poverty alleviation programme by 150%. This idea of poverty eradication was received with high hopes especially given the speed with which the administration tackled the fuel problem as soon as it came to power. Poverty alleviation was seen as a means through which the government can revamp the battered economy and rebuild self-esteem in majority of Nigerians who had been dehumanized through past military regimes.
In 1980, poverty was largely a rural phenomenon. For example, 28 per cent of rural people compared with 17 per cent of urban people lived below poverty line. By 1985, poverty had become pervasive in both rural and urban areas. Urban poverty incidences more than doubled as it rose sharply from 17 per cent in 1980 to 38 per cent in 1985. The incidence of rural poverty equally increased remarkably from 28 per cent to 51 per cent during the period. This high incidence of urban poverty is not surprising given the high rural urban migration that accompanied the impetus to development generated by oil revenues. Moreover, the collapse of oil exports income, and the massive importation of food to meet the declining production capacity in the agricultural and industrial sectors, may have severely affected the urban dwellers World Bank, (1996).
In 1992, urban poverty headcounts remained almost unchanged at 37.5 per cent, while rural poverty declined from 51 per cent in 1985 to 46 per cent in 1992. However, both Urban and rural poverty rates increased between 1992 and 1996, from about 37 per cent to 59 per cent and 46 per cent to 72 per cent for Urban and Rural areas respectively. These findings are consistent with earlier studies, which tend to suggest that poverty was more pronounced among rural than Urban people World Bank (1996).
Judging from the above data, reducing poverty in developing countries became the most persistent challenge facing the world today. Governments, civil society groups, non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), and the international institutions such as the World Bank are now in the forefront of the battle to reduce poverty in developing countries including Nigeria. Poverty in Nigeria has reached an alarming level and is blamed on non-clear government social policies. Across the world, government plays a key role in poverty alleviation. In the case of Nigeria, the inability of successive governments to streamline and harness the enormous potentials for improved service delivery in all the existing structures of poverty eradication has resulted into persistent poverty.
In Nigeria, right from 1976 till date, many programmes and projects have been designed to tackle poverty. These include: Rural Basin Development Authorities (RBDA), Agricultural Development Programme (ADP) , Rural Electrification Scheme (RES) , National Directorate of Employment (NDE), Directorate of Food, Roads, and Rural Infrastructure (DFFRI), Better life, Family Support Programme (FSP) Rural Banking Scheme (RBS), Agricultural. Credit Guarantee Scheme (ACGS), National economic empowerment and development strategies (NEEDS), poverty Alleviation Programme,(PAP) National Poverty Eradication Programe (NAPEP). Aigbokhan (1998). But the effectiveness of these programmes is also important for proper implementation and how far the poverty reduction strategies, especially the National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP) has gone to reduce poverty in Nigeria, was brings about a cause for this study. Anambra State is selected as the area of the study (Ogwumike 1998 and Okojie et al, 1999).
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Today, poverty is widely addressed as a global problem. It affects over four billion of about seven billion people living in the world. Most of these poor people are living in developing countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. From 1960 till date, the successive governments in Nigeria have initiated various programmes, all aimed at tackling poverty and yet the increase of poverty remained unabated in the country. Consequently upon assumption of office in 1999, President Obasanjo introduced a number of programmes and measures aimed at tackling poverty.
This development leads to establishment of the Panel or Committee to streamlining and rationalization of existing poverty alleviation institutions and the co-coordination, implementation and monitoring of relevant schemes. These resulted in the introduction (in early 2001) of the National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP) in Nigeria. Data has it that over N25billion from 2001 till date have been received by NAPEP for the fight against poverty in Nigeria. Unfortunately, poverty level seems to be unresponsive to these windfall of resources addressed for the fight. In spite of this huge resources devoted to NAPEP, deterioration in fiscal discipline, corruption and inconsistent policies which had undermined past efforts still makes poverty eradication in Nigeria a paradox. The rate of crime and unemployment has continued to rise and the poverty situation has exacerbated.
In a reaction to an allegation of mismanagement of funds meant for the war against poverty in Nigeria, by the Nigerian senate, NAPEP said that it had generated funds from other sources and expended N21.725 billion on the programme from 2001 to 2008. The National Coordinator of the programme and Special Assistant to the President (2004/2007), Dr. Magnus Kpakol explained that since inception in 2001, the programmes received N11.8 Billion as budgetary allocation, N4billion for procurement of Keke NAPEP, N10billion from State Governments and commercial banks for multi- partnership programme and N8.2 billion from the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), totaling N34billion. However, the NAPEP boss explained that about N21.7billion was spent at the time (Daily Champion, Wednesday February 18, 2009 p7).
There have been heated arguments on the impact of the poverty alleviation programme in Anambra State. Looking at above stated figures which the government agency claimed to have invested into the poverty alleviation programmes, it becomes a puzzle why poverty is on the increasing in Nigeria. Some have argued that the programme has not improved on the socio-economic lives of the people, while others were of the view that the programme has improved the socio-economic lives of the people of Anambra especially in the areas of education, electricity and road network. In a motion titled “Dismal Performance of the National Poverty Eradication Programme”, Senator Kure observed that poverty have continued to be on the increase with about 70% of the nation’s population currently living below poverty level. He lamented that since its establishment in 2001, the agency has not efficiently impacted on the lives of Nigerians despite huge resources committed through budgetary allocations and Millennium Development Goals (MDGS) fund (Daily champion, Wednesday Feb.18, 2009).As a matter of fact, the need arises to take a careful look at the issues of poverty reduction in Nigeria, coming against the background of continuing efforts on the part of the government to address it, if close to N34billons has been gathered for poverty eradication in 8years and yet the poor are getting poorer while the rich are getting richer in Nigeria. If these resources have been properly utilized, there should have been significant improvements in the living standards of the generality of the people and the poverty level should have been reduced (Daily Champion, Wednesday February 18, 2009 :7).
In order, not to pre-empt the outcome of this study, which is aimed at finding out how the activities of NAPEP has impacted negatively or positively on the socio- economic lives of Anambraof people. The preceding problem statement has pave way for the following questions which further guided the formulation of the objectives of the study and the hypotheses:
Does inadequate monitoring negatively affect the successful implementation of NAPEP in Anambra State?
Does poor funding of NAPEP tends to impede the achievement of the programme’s aims and objectives?
Does sharp practice in the selection of the beneficiaries negatively affect the achievement of the goals and objectives of NAPEP?
1.3 Objectives of the Study
General Objective
The broad objective of the study has been to examine the impact of National poverty alleviation on the socio-economic lives of the people of Anambra State.
Specific Objectives: Specifically, the study wishes:
To examine whether inadequate monitoring has negatively contributed to the poor implementation of NAPEP in Anambra State.
To examine whether inadequate funding has pose challenge to the realization of the goal of NAPEP in Anambra State.
To examine whether sharp practices in the selection of the beneficiaries pose challenge to the realization of aims and objectives of NAPEP in Anambra State.
1.4 Hypotheses
HA1: Poors monitoring does not negatively affect the successful implementation of NAPEP in Anambra State.
HA2: Inadequate funding of NAPEP does not impede the achievement of the NAPEP aims and objectives in Anambra State.
HA3:Sharp practices in the selection of beneficiaries do not negatively affect the goals and objective of NAPEP in Anambra State.
1.5 Significance of the Study
To the masses this study would publicize the activities and programmes of NAPEP, and how it has affected the wellbeing of Nigerians.
To the Government and Policy-makers, it identifies and reveals the successes and failures, challenges and prospects of NAPEP and affords them the opportunity of designing and implementing a holistic approach, procedures and strategies and better ways of tackling this hydra- headed menace called, poverty.
To the students and fellow researchers, it reveals the operations and the impact of NAPEP on the people. While it serves as an addition to the stock of knowledge, it also serves as a basis for further research.
1.6 Scope and Limitations of Study
The study focused on the poverty alleviation programmes which have been initiated and implemented to eradicate poverty in Anambra State from 2003-2013.
On the other hand, in the course of this study, the researcher encountered some constraints, which one of the major one of those is that of transportation; there are twenty-one (21) Local Government Areas in Anambra State, because of high cost of transportation fare; it was difficult for the researcher to reach out to whole areas under study.
In addition, another obstacle encountered by the researcher in the course of the work, is the attitude of the people in the local government secretariat. Most of the people were very reluctant in given out information needed for the work. Lack of necessary materials required for this study was another serious challenge encountered by the researcher. But in all, those challenges could not scare away the researcher from the study, as he has been able to bring the work to this present level.
1.7 Justification of the Study
The justification of this study is based on the level of increase of poverty in Nigeria. By virtue of country’s size, population and rich endowment of natural and human resources, 70% of Nigerians live below One dollar per day. This study is important and necessary for effective poverty monitory system, since the reduction strategies will be examined. In Nigeria today a study like this is important, and needed for a credible agenda and framework for economic growth and poverty reduction. The need for this study arises as a result of the failures of past poverty reduction programmes, due to poor implementation, wrong approach to the programme design, and lack of accountability and transparency and overlapping functions and inadequate coordination of programmes. Hence, there is need to study the effect, these programmes have on the economy and provide measures to ensure better policy implementation of future projects.
1.8 Definition of Key Terms
Poverty: It could be defined as a situation where ones income is too low to allow the purchase of goods and service that will satisfy its basic need and when it has no financial resources kept in the form of accumulated or acquired wealth. The father of modern economics, Adams Smith defined poverty as “the inability to purchase necessities required by nature or custom” (Smith, 1776). In this definition, the social/psychological status aspect of poverty (custom) receives implicitly the same weight as the material, purely economic condition (nature). He further elaborated on this definition by clarifying the type of necessities required to be considered non-poor.
Poverty Line: It is defined as the money cost of a given person at a given time and place of a reference level of welfare. The people who do not maintain this level is called the poor and those who do are described been poor.
Poverty level: It is used to denote those living below the poverty line.
Eradication: (According to Oxford Advance Dictionary), is to destroy or get rid of something completely, especially something bad.
Programme: (According to Oxford Advance Dictionary) as a plan of things that will be done or included in the development of something.
Economic Development
This explains substantial progress and transformation in the economic realm of a society, with considerable effect on social and political systems. Economic development is globally measured by a number of variables or indices such as high growth rate of the gross national product (GNP), high level of equitable distribution of income, high level of labour output per man, high degree of capital formation, high level of industrialization, high degree of agricultural development, high level of technological acquisition and application, high degree of economic diversification, high level of labour productivity, low level of poverty, among other variables. Economic growth is rather restricted. Economic development goes beyond growth to involve changes in the composition of output in the allocation of inputs by sector. Economic development explains the positive changes in national income attitudes, structures, and institutions, so as to ensure equality, better condition of living and availability of employment opportunities.
Governance
This is defined broadly as the traditions and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised. This includes the process by which governments are selected and replaced, the capacity of the government to formulate and implement sound policies, and the respect of the citizens and the state for the institutions that govern economic and social interactions among them.
Leave a Comment